Information
Version: B | 1.1 (2022-07-20)
WelfareScore | farm
Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.
- Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
- Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
- Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential
WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)
General remarks
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii is a critically endangered species, present in the IUCN red list. It is cultured for restocking, food (fish flesh), and for caviar. Many aspects of its biology remain unknown, namely aggregation patterns, aggression, and stress responses. In addition, many aspects of its production are not available, such as densities, slaughter protocols, and malformation rates. Spawning induction is highly invasive, and special attention should be given to adequate substrate in various production stages.
1 Home range
Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.2 Depth range
Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.
What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?
It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.3 Migration
Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?
It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a high amount of evidence.4 Reproduction
A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.
What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of theses circumstances?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.5 Aggregation
Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.
What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?
It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.6 Aggression
There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.
What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?
It is unclear for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.7 Substrate
Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).
What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.8 Stress
Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).
What is the probability of the species not being stressed?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.9 Malformations
Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.
What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?
It is unclear for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.10 Slaughter
The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.
What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?
It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.Side note: Domestication
Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.
What is the species’ domestication level?
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 22, level 5 being fully domesticated.
Side note: Forage fish in the feed
450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.
To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?
All age classes: WILD: carnivorous 12. FARM: no replacement of fish meal and fish oil reported in literature.
Glossary
ANADROMOUS = migrating from the sea into fresh water to spawn
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 4 = entire life cycle closed in captivity without wild inputs 22
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details ➝ Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
Bibliography
2 Kynard, Boyd, Ping Zhuang, Longzhen Zhang, Tao Zhang, and Zheng Zhang. 2002. Ontogenetic Behavior and Migration of Volga River Russian sturgeon, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, with a Note on Adaptive Significance of Body Color. Environmental Biology of Fishes 65: 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021121900207.
3 Doroshov, Sergei I. 1985. Biology and Culture of Sturgeon Acipenseriformes. In Recent Advances in Aquaculture, ed. James F. Muir and Ronald J. Roberts, 251–274. Boston, MA: Springer US.
4 Chebanov, Mikhail S., and Elena V. Galich. 2011. Sturgeon hatchery manual. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 558. Ankara: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
5 Saraiva, João L. 2018. Personal communication.
6 Çelikkale, M. S., D. Memiş, E. Ercan, and F. Çağıltay. 2005. Growth performance of juvenile Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt & Ratzenburg, 1833) at two stocking densities in net cages. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21: 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2004.00567.x.
7 Kocabaş, Mehmet, Nadir Başçınar, Şebnem Atasaral Şahin, and Ramazan Serezli. 2015. Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Russian Sturgeon Acipenser gueldenstaedtii Brandt&Ratzeburg, 1833 in Grow-out Phase Cultured in the Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 3: 816–818. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v3i10.816-818.442.
8 Khodorevskaya, R. P., and Ye. V. Krasikov. 1999. Sturgeon abundance and distribution in the Caspian Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00218.x.
9 Memiş, Devrim, M.S. Çelikkale, and Ertan Ercan. 2006. Effects of different diets on growth performance and body composition of Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, Brandt & Ratzenburg, 1833). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22: 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2007.00970.x.
10 Birstein, Vadim J., and Georgii I. Ruban. 2004. A comment on the Siberian, Acipenser baerii, and Russian, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, sturgeons. Environmental Biology of Fishes 70: 91–92.
11 Williot, Patrick, Laurent Sabeau, Joern Gessner, Giovanni Arlati, Paolo Bronzi, Tamas Gulyas, and Paolo Berni. 2001. Sturgeon farming in Western Europe: recent developments and perspectives. Aquat. Living Resour.: 9.
12 Khodorevskaya, R. P., G. I. Ruban, and D. S. Pavlov. 2009. Behaviour, migrations, distribution and stocks of sturgeons in the Volga-Caspian basin. World Sturgeon Conservation Society: Special Publication 3. Norder- stedt, Germany: Books on Demand GmbH.
13 Rochard, Eric, G. Castelnaud, and Mario Lepage. 1990. Sturgeons (Pisces: Acipenseridae); threats and prospects. Journal of Fish Biology 37: 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05028.x.
14 Hurvitz, Avshalom, Karen Jackson, Gad Degani, and Berta Levavi-Sivan. 2007. Use of endoscopy for gender and ovarian stage determinations in Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) grown in aquaculture. Aquaculture 270: 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.05.020.
15 Semenkova, T. B., L.v. Bayunova, A.a. Boev, and V.p. Dyubin. 1999. Effects of stress on serum Cortisol levels of sturgeon in aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 15: 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.1999.tb00249.x.
16 Allen, P. J., C. C. Barth, S. J. Peake, M. V. Abrahams, and W. G. Anderson. 2009. Cohesive social behaviour shortens the stress response: the effects of conspecifics on the stress response in lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02112.x.
17 Żelazowska, M. 2010. Formation and structure of egg envelopes in Russian sturgeon Acipenser gueldenstaedtii (Acipenseriformes: Acipenseridae). Journal of Fish Biology 76: 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02527.x.
18 Memiş, D., E. Ercan, and G. Yamaner. 2011. The effects of shaded pond on growth performance of Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27: 571–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01732.x.
19 Kynard, B., R. Suciu, and M. Horgan. 2002. Migration and habitats of diadromous Danube River sturgeons in Romania: 1998–2000. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 529–535. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2002.00404.x.
20 Bayunova, L., I. Barannikova, and T. Semenkova. 2002. Sturgeon stress reactions in aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18: 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0426.2002.00410.x.
21 Williot, Patrick, Mikhail Chebanov, and Guy Nonnotte. 2018. Welfare in the Cultured Siberian Sturgeon, Acipenser baerii Brandt: State of the Art. In The Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser baerii, Brandt, 1869) Volume 2 - Farming, 403–450. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61676-6_19.
22 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
